If it were a moral world…

Tag Archives: birth control

At the risk of further abusing a decayed and desiccated equestrian cadaver, I’ve had it up to here (crap—you can’t see my gestures through text. Bah, just imagine it) with the “contraceptive coverage violates my religious liberties” argument. Here’s the latest one, courtesy of Speaker of the House John Boehner’s twitter feed:

Let’s ignore, for a moment, the absurdity of the notion of an “abortion-causing drug” and—oh nevermind, let’s not. This one’s so stupid, it needs its own paragraph. What is an abortion?

a·bor·tion /əˈbɔrʃən/
noun
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.

And contraception?

con·tra·cep·tion /ˌkɒntrəˈsɛpʃən/
noun
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

Abortion is an intervention, either surgical or medical (85% and 15%, respectively, per the CDC), to terminate a pregnancy. Contraception, by definition, cannot be abortion because abortion can only occur after impregnation. An abortion can be done, realistically, at any point in a woman’s pregnancy, all the way up to the final (ninth-ish) month of pregnancy, although third trimester abortions are exceedingly rare (91% occur in the first trimester, and most of that remaining 9% in the second). Contrast this with the notion of “abortion-causing drugs,” by which the author is presumably referring to ella, a “Plan C” pill that a woman can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy (it also triggered a good deal of outrage in the wingnut lobby). It should be obvious—but apparently it isn’t—that swallowing a pill is radically different from undergoing an invasive surgical procedure. One cannot merely swallow a pill six months into her pregnancy and consider the whole ordeal over. The implication that these drugs are fundamentally equivalent to a surgical procedure is at best a gross misrepresentation of the facts (and is more likely a deliberate distortion intended to compel people with more emotion than sense to yell vociferously). Comparing abortion to contraception serves only to demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in rational discussion. It is a red herring, meant only for deception.

Top Posts & Pages

Blogroll

About Me

Artist's rendering

Why Subjunctive Morality? In grammar, a subjunctive construction is one that conveys an unreal state, and in language, morality is an abstract idea representing rightness of action (and possibly thought). Given that behavior matching this ideal is far from ubiquitous, we maintain an element of subjunctivity in the moral sphere. Additionally, because I reject the notion of moral relativism, Subjunctive Morality is also appropriate in that the word subjunctive vaguely resembles (but isn't) subjective. This is an excellent analog for the idea that even though morality is conditional and may thus be misconstrued as subjective, we can and do use objective measures to gauge it. This is a crucial distinction, and it also reveals that I enjoy puns. I'm not quite sure how puns tie into the virtues of Humanism, critical thinking, and skepticism, but I'm sure I could come up with an amusing post-hoc rationalization if pressed. Well, in any case, hooray for reason, and boo for outdated notions rooted in superstition and dogma.
I'm also on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr, if any of those are your cup of tea.